The topic of the renaming of Mitchell-Freeman Hall has come up in almost all of my classes, and after listening to my peers, reading the statements from the University, and hearing what my professors have to say, I have one outstanding question: “Why are we really keeping the name ‘Freeman’ on the building?’
The answer? Probably money, but we wouldn’t know because the University of Richmond isn’t being transparent with us. President Crutcher’s explanation for Freeman’s name to remain on the building makes no sense; there is a huge difference between remembering historical figures and memorializing them. By naming a building after a racist segregationalist (who wasn’t shy about labeling himself as such) the University is memorializing him, honoring him. But the whole concept of this is shocking—it may be an overused example, but imagine if Germany had statues and buildings “remembering” Adolf Hitler? People would lose it. He was a horrible person who committed genocide… we all know who he was, it’s ingrained in our history, but there’s absolutely no good reason to celebrate or memorialize him because his actions, despite being in the past, were so atrocious it would be unfathomable to create anything that would even remotely honor him—so why is Richmond honoring and memorializing Freeman by keeping his name on the building despite his revolting actions and beliefs?
Like I said, at the end of the day the only explanation that makes sense to me would be that the University is still benefiting financially from the Freeman family and there are contractual issues with changing the building name, but if that is the truth, it just goes to show how this school prioritizes money over the wellbeing of its students. The lack of transparency with the school is concerning and really becomes apparent when issues like this arise; the student body, especially black students, deserves an honest explanation and an actual plan on how the University is planning to combat acts of racism and its problematic history.
I defiantly agree that the decision was likely made for financial reasons. I also think the decision is completely short-sided. The university is neglecting how the decision will impact its image for future students. I read somewhere recently that the United States will have a majority-minority society by 2044. The US is increasingly becoming more diverse, and actions like retaining segregationist names on buildings will make it more difficult for the university to attract students in the future.
I think your comparison to Germany and Hitler is great. Why do we have to memorialize these people when we can just educate on their wrongdoings instead? This especially bothers me because they said there will be an informational display in Ryland once it is completed, so I see no valid reason as to why they need to maintain the name.